The Calcutta High Court reaffirms that persistent non-appearance of the petitioner is sufficient ground to dismiss a writ petition for default. This outcome upholds established procedural law, confirming that courts need not adjudicate on merits if the petitioner fails to prosecute. The ruling is a reaffirmation of existing precedent and serves as binding authority within West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/13644/2024 of SMRITI KUMAR MANNA Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0250112024 |
| Date of Registration | 10-05-2024 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Calcutta High Court jurisdiction for dismissal on default due to non-appearance |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law (Writ Jurisdiction) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and benches of the Calcutta High Court regarding dismissal for non-appearance in writ petitions |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering procedural default in writ matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reconfirms that courts may dismiss petitions for default when the petitioner does not appear, even if the matter is listed ‘For Dismissal’.
- Any interim relief previously granted in such petitions will automatically stand vacated upon dismissal for default.
- No costs are necessarily imposed when dismissing for default due to non-appearance.
- Lawyers must ensure diligent attendance and prosecution to avoid procedural dismissal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Calcutta High Court observed that the petition was listed specifically under the heading ‘For Dismissal’.
- On the date of hearing, there was no appearance from the petitioner’s side, while the State and another respondent’s counsel were present.
- Given the petitioner’s persistent absence, the Court dismissed the writ petition for default.
- The Court vacated any interim order that might have been in effect and issued no order as to costs.
- The reasoning emphasizes that a matter will not be decided on merits if the petitioner does not prosecute, and underscores the procedural necessity of appearance.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No submissions recorded due to non-appearance.
Respondent (State and Respondent No.2)
- Counsel appeared; no substantive arguments recorded as matter dismissed for default.
Factual Background
The writ petition was listed before the Calcutta High Court under the heading ‘For Dismissal’. On the date of hearing, counsel for the writ petitioner did not appear, while the State and respondent no.2 were represented. In view of the petitioner’s absence, the Court dismissed the writ petition for default, vacating any interim orders. No costs were imposed.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment rests on procedural principles governing writ jurisdiction and court management. Specific statutory provisions are not discussed, but the Court applies well-established judicial norms permitting dismissal for non-appearance.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are present in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations are set by the judgment; the Court followed established procedure for dismissal of petitions for default due to non-appearance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law permitting dismissal for procedural default is affirmed.